And all of this starts with the data itself. It is the data you want to access which has the real value. Data you should own from the beginning.
If the data is in an open standard format, there is a possibility to break free.
If you cannot control the data, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If you cannot have access to software being able to make use of the data in a meaningful way for you, there are no baseline for digital sovereignty. If the software cannot be written, because the data format is unknown or too closely tied to the service provider generating the data, there are no baseline to achieve digital sovereignty.
With open standards, there can be built open source software using those open standards. Thus, you can decode and extract meaningful information from the data.
There are also no requirements anywhere that there must be more implementations for open source project from more countries. They key point is that source code must be open and available for all. That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible. Without a source code available, the path to extracting meaningful information ends up incredibly hard.
Open sourced software is one piece of the digital sovereignty puzzle, data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.
Having access to the data files containing your information is yet another piece in the same puzzle. You cannot achieve digital sovereignty without all of these three pieces;then someone will still have control of your information.
Likewise, if you use a service with a proprietary API - you are bound to that service as long as that service uses the same API. If more service providers provide the same standardised API, you can more easily switch between services. Again, open standards is a key component for digital sovereignty - otherwise you will not be able to process your data as you want.
And all of this starts with the data itself.Code is data. Data is code.
#GDPR lack of enforcement against US #BigTech shows that while you are right at a theoretical level, in practice we need to be extremely careful to not be fooled by lobbyists that work to replace law with "paper compliance".
It would be easy for a US company to argue they produce open source, with open formats and open API defined by "open standards" that they control.
Then, to keep everything unchanged, they might just take competitor out of the market with overwhelming complexity, unfair competition based on free tiers and by buying the few survivors (if any).
Forced interoperability might be a step further, but it's not enough anyway: both #Meta and #BlueSky interoperate with the #fediverse over #ActivityPub, but in fact they jusr harmed the fediverse without any user moving over here preserving their contacts.
In brief, to get Digital Sovereignty we need to get rid of US tech.
There is no alternative, only procrastination.
They key point is that source code must be open and available for all.聽聽That takes away the chances of someone talking full control of the software and restricting the freedom otherwise possible.I'd love if it was that simple!
Unfortunately, it's not.
Again, #Chromium is open source and its code is available for all.
Yet it's tightly controlled by #Google that shape it (and the #WHATWG "open standards") into one of the worse and most powerful surveillance and manipulation tools out there.
I agree that some #opensource projects might be useful to gain #DigitalSovereignty (think of #NextCloud for example), but only if when their development is not controlled by any corporation tied with external governments.
This cut out all biggest open source projects, mostly leaded by US corporations or their employees.
data in an open standard is another piece in the same puzzle.Again, it's not so simple: for example both #OpenDocument and #OOXML ( #OfficeOpenXML) are open standards, but in fact when you save in ooxml (docx, xlsx..) by #Microsoft tools, they include undocumented proprietary extensions that #LibreOffice cannot handle properly.
So again while proprietary formats always harm individual freedom and #DigitalSovereignty of nations, openness is not, by itself, enough to get them.
And yet, a proprietary format developed by a fully European company would harm individual freedom just like any proprietary format but, given the company would be only and fully subject to European law (no #FISA702, no #CLOUD Act, no #Trump...), it would still enhance the digital sovereignty of the Union over an open standard totally controlled by US corporations.
So things are more complex and you can't get any real freedom or sovereignty from buzzwords like "open", "free" or #foss.
So again, to get #digital sovereignty, first of all we need to be laser focused on getting rid of #US control over #UE computing, citizens and lawmakers.
Some Free Software and Open Standards may help achieving such goal, but just being open is not enough. And we can't wait for all european software to be free to achieve Digital Sovereignty.
@jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net